Folks: Understanding the fix the USA is in will be easier if more of
you can read my highly expert analysis of Barack Obama's and Ronald
Reagan's handwriting. Please talk about what I'm saying. For too
long, people in this country have been letting the media crooks do
most of the talking.
8/05/08
Dear Tom: No two people could be more different than Ronald Reagan
and Barack Obama! If you haven’t read, I am a lifelong graphologist—
one of, if not the best analyzers of handwriting in the entire World!
Ronald Reagan’s handwriting shows someone with a nervous temperament.
But that’s not a “losing it” nervous temperament like John McCain
has. Reagan was a conventional thinking man; i.e., his value system
was like that of most good people. His personality showed that he was
responding to pressures from various fronts, but he could bend rather
than break. What that means is: Reagan never compromised his
principles! Those who show a legible, normal-sized and formed
writing, that also have a nervous but controlled temperament, are salt-
of-the-Earth people!
Reagan’s letter forms were legible, but not fussily exact. That
means that he was practical-minded and not overly concerned with
details. Writers like that are like the majority of good executives:
They can delegate authority, and are trusting enough to leave the
‘petty details’ to subordinates. Reagan’s signature and the body of
his texts were similar and conventional. His letter forms were
consistently rounded and easy-flowing. So, I know that he was
friendly and well liked. The latter was the primary social trait of
Reagan, which was evident in his smile, humor, easy body language, and
gestures. Those things caused Reagan to inspire trust and confidence!
On the personal side, Reagan was lonely. That fact is indicated
by the above average space between his words. He’d speak his mind,
then leave people alone to do the work required. His relationship
with his family was more detached than he wanted. He had simple, non-
materialistic ideals. The achieving of worthy goals meant more to him
than riches. And those were off-the-table if there were family
pressures. The goals came first, the family second. He was a
trusting parent—not an overly doting one. To him, hard knocks helped
build strong character. Sometimes that was tough-love, but it was
love!
Barack Obama is as artificial and unconventional as his biracial
parentage tells. From birth, he had identity issues that are ruling
him to this day. He has an almost schizophrenia-like way of bottling-
up his emotions. As a kid, he learned to keep his true feelings to
himself. That’s why he never developed the facial expressions and
body language of a normal person. Such a lack was the first abnormal
thing I noticed about him when he addressed the 2004 Democratic
Convention.
Obama’s inferiority complex demanded that he rise above his
heritage. With each little success, his ego swelled—as did his
capital letters. Those with huge egos make very poor executives.
It’s their way or no way. Obama would be a misfit in any group
dynamic such as in the Executive Office. He would keep getting in the
way of even desirable goals. People will resist him, because he is so
cock sure. The ideas of others seem small by comparison.
Yes, Obama has charisma. Basically, that means that he draws
attention to himself because of his bearing and “poise” in public
situations. But the majority of what passes as “poise” with Obama is
his from-birth, personality flaw of not showing appropriate emotions.
Many must be impressed that he doesn’t show nervousness. His control
over his outward emotions is so developed—but is actually pathological—
that he could pass any lie detector test with ease. The man is
emotionally dead. Obama’s dominant ‘tone’ is that of someone who
isn’t happy. He seems to be successful in rallying those who are too
shy to express their own unhappiness.
Obama PRINTS too many of his letters. Even in the body of his
writing he uses printed letters. He makes those forms with such
exactness that he reveals himself to be a pedant and a perfectionist.
Both of those characteristics mean that he has few if any friends.
He’s an individualistic, loner. His best contribution would be to be
left alone to work out the details, but he insists on controlling
every aspect of every activity around him. Obama has the personality
of a dictator and a demagogue, not a “Reagan-like” delegater and
listener.
Most people with unique personalities, whose writing shows flare
that’s lacking in average people, have superior intelligence. But
Obama has excessive deliberateness in his writing. Deliberateness
means artificiality, lack of spontaneity, phoniness, self-centeredness
and being overbearing. It also shows someone who places form above
substance. Because printing is slower than cursive writing, his IQ
isn’t as high as his verbal fluency hints. When Obama must express
his feelings, extemporaneously, he does so in a most broken and
halting matter, and his talking speed is much too slow! Some view
that as his being “really affected” by what he is saying. But I view
it as the expressions of someone with such mixed emotions about things
that he must PLAN his words. People who do that are UNTRUSTWORTHY.
That’s why I keep referring to Obama as: THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE.
Those who are too impressed by his poise-under-fire need to realize
that he’s got the selfish ego of the anti Christ. With Obama,
disaster will be omnipresent!
So, Tom, how is it that someone smart like you, who now lives in
China, has the idea that Obama has a snowball's-chance-in-hell of
improving the World condition? The US Congress—with the majority,
there, having huge egos, too—won’t be swayed by rhetoric. Every day,
rhetoric slides off of their backs like water on ducks. His “I’m
angry-toned” speeches appeal to some would-be voters. But after his
first term bogs down, words won’t be enough. Obama doesn’t have the
LIKABLE personality of a “bridge builder”. He doesn’t have the
character and the “knows the difference between right and wrong”
aptitude to be a respected leader. For the good of the nation, Barack
Obama should never be allowed to “get his picture” on any of our
currency, or on any paintings hung on the Capital walls. The survival
of the World is depending on it!
Your damning characterization of “McCain” are equally true of
Obama. Obama has already addressed those Jewish jerks, live, while
standing in front of that rusting war junk in Israel. In unambiguous
words, Obama promised to “support” Israel (with our military might).
He is being held captive by those &@$#1 Jews, too. But I’m using
every ounce of my being to see to it that NEITHER Obama nor McCain
become President! Electing LIBERTARIANS will send a massage to the
World that we Americans are as fed-up with our government as those in
foreign countries are. My New Constitution will instate—for the first
time in our history—democracy and FAIR PLAY in America! And there
will be swift consequences to any American business not being fair and
respectful to those less fortunate in other lands. By “cleaning-up-
our-own-act”, here, the World will soon know that the USA is its best
friend.
Obama promises ‘changes’… while he is leading us to our doom.
But be it known: “A fair, just and pro democracy NEW CONSTITUTION is
the only ‘change’ that we need!” Pass it on! — NoEinstein — AKA
John A. Armistead, Patriot
>
On Jan 29, 11:47 am, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Readers:
>
> It continues to enlighten me how “right-on” many of my previous
> essays, relating to my odyssey to save the USA, have been. Here is
> one which I wrote to counter the LIE that Tim Russert had been an
> admirable public figure:
>
> 6/24/08
>
> TIM RUSSERT PERSONIFIED WHAT’S WRONG ABOUT THE MEDIA.
>
> Many would suppose that it is… the ‘American way’ to advance from a
> lowly Washington reporter to have been one of the ‘most watched’
> leaders of the media. But Tim Russert was about as anti-American as
> they come. Yes, he used smiles to punctuate his trademark attacks on
> the ‘weaknesses’ of his many guests. And he sometimes punctuated
> those attacks with looks of cynicism. But, getting good Nelson
> Ratings shouldn’t be the standard by which any media figure is judged.
>
> While Russet’s star was just rising, I had the ‘inside scoop’ on
> felonious acts committed by one of our most notorious US senators.
> Sounds like… ‘news’, doesn’t it? But over several years—while I kept
> trying to get my story out—I learned that the media is corrupt-to-the-
> core. To wit: The media assumes that so-called ‘public figures’
> aren’t required to live by the same standards of lawfulness as other
> citizens.
>
> Because Tim Russert seemed to be someone who ‘attacked’ his news
> stories, I poured-my-heart-out to him in a letter that also included
> pages of documentation copied on the old 3.5” floppy disks. But
> Russert, nor any of the thirty or so other media ‘icons’ whom I
> contacted would even consider that… ‘news’ might come from someone who
> isn’t a celebrity. What gets covered as news in this country must
> pass through layers of… editors, before some of it leaks through. It
> is that same process—that eventually found Tim Russert at or near the
> top of the media pecking order—that allows me to rightly peg Russert
> as anti-American. The tacit role of the media is to inform the
> Citizens. Tim failed to properly do so, because of his bias and
> egotistical elitism.
>
> The media is comforted by its united front. These days, there are no
> maverick investigative reporters. I should know; I’ve looked high and
> low! CNN contributor, Carl Bernstein, once made a splash by helping
> to break Watergate. But he won’t make ‘a ripple’, now, to let it be
> told that I have disproved Einstein’s theories of relativity. And
> Bernstein isn’t interested in breaking a story—much more important
> than Watergate ever was—that none of the twenty plus universities
> which I have contacted care to correct the errors in their teaching
> which the trusting public just assumes are error free. In effect, the
> media is protecting the status quo both in government, and in
> education. And that is why the media is the one ‘institution’ most
> threatening to the survival of the USA. It is even MORE threatening
> than all of our failed governments combined!
>
> In addition to my seeking justice via the media for my injuries due to
> that… US senator, I also tried to seek justice by contacting the likes
> of Al Gore, while he was President of the Senate. And I contacted the
> US Justice Department, and eventually, the Chief Justice of the US
> Supreme Court. None of those, and dozens more like them, care to hold
> any public figure accountable for felonious acts. Such a realization
> is what prompted me to write a New Constitution. The primary purpose
> of such is to kick out the rascals in Washington, a little at a time,
> by restricting our representatives—other than our President and V.
> Pres.—to those who have NEVER held any public office at the local,
> state, or federal levels. Career politicians are verboten!
>
> George W. Bush is a lame duck whose public esteem is about as low as
> it can go. But to his credit, Bush is one of the best from-the-heart
> speakers. The man has great speech writers. Even though the words he
> expresses aren‘t always his own, his comments seem genuine—like he
> cares. I admit that I don’t listen anytime that Bush talks about… his
> war. His caring, there, is less than ideal. But if I could go hiking
> or fishing with Bush, that would be something special.
>
> Part of the reason George Bush ‘won’ in 2000 was because he got the
> endorsement of that felonious US senator whom I’ve alluded to, above.
> Bush praised that senator, even after I had written to Bush—as I did
> to every state governor in the USA, apprising him, and all of them, of
> the senator’s apt crime(s). Apparently, politicians, and the media,
> are more than willing to look the other way to the wrongful acts of
> public figures. They seem to know, intuitively, that their own
> chances of escaping civil retribution for bad deeds goes way up if
> they will only look-the-other-way to the wrongs done by public
> figures.
>
> After George W. Bush failed to act morally regarding that felonious
> senator, I immediately wrote to Senator John McCain. I informed
> McCain that he could easily win the Republican nomination if he would
> just explain to the media that Bush had knowingly praised and embraced
> a felonious senator. I don’t know what… ‘dirt’ the Republican party
> had on McCain, but he passed up the last and the best hope he has ever
> had to become President… and that was before the loss of much of his
> mental wherewithal—which will prevent him from winning the present
> presidential race.
>
> I’ve had, perhaps, ’the scoop’ of the century regarding that senator.
> And I’ve had the scientific achievement of the century by disproving
> Einstein. Recently, I’ve begun to reveal details concerning my labor-
> of-love New Constitution. Such has been inspired to correct our
> nation’s problems, and in ways that will be most advantageous to the
> American People. Incredibly, none of those things, or all three
> combined, rises to the threshold of being even “fifteen minutes” of…
> news, Because of our corrupt media, America is in big trouble—very big
> trouble!
>
> Tim Russert, and his ilk, got or get, personal enjoyment from making
> others be uncomfortable, because of pointed questions or comments. A
> real gentleman wouldn’t do that. There was something in Russet’s
> ‘value system’ that just wasn’t right. That’s why I listed him,
> first, of those anti-democracy media figures who should face
> retribution for their crimes. It has been said that Russert had
> enthusiasm. But his enthusiasm was, quite simply, for doing the wrong
> things in his job; doing things not in the best interest of the
> country; and getting paid a huge salary to do so. Past ‘monetary
> compensation’ won’t stand anyone in good stead at the Pearly Gates.
>
> George Carlin, bless his soul, had more vision for how America should
> be than any politician in Washington, or any media icon! The man
> perceived truths! Very few people can do that so insightfully, for so
> long, and with such fervor. His shoes will be very difficult ones to
> fill.
>
> The ruinous media keeps right on doing their 24/7 “nothings” that they
> pass off as… news. Thinking Americans everywhere should wake up and
> realize how hugely biased the media is toward the status quo. If any
> of you are craving listening to talk, turn to the public radio and TV
> stations. To begin to save the last hope for America: democracy, by
> all means, STOP REPLYING TO ANY POLITICAL POLLSTERS! Don’t give the
> ubiquitous media fools any ’scores’ to justify their commenting
> regarding politics, or anything else, as in Ballot Bowl or etc.
> Politics is NOT a game!
>
> Hopefully, Barack Obama is the last of a long line of political two-
> faces. He has never reached a high enough moral plateau to qualify to
> be President. He didn’t treat Clinton with the respect that she
> deserved; and he didn’t honor simple principles of democracy regarding
> the FL and MI primaries. Those two things, and others, show that
> Obama is unprincipled. He likes anything—corrupt or not—that improves
> his chances of winning. People who think like that are the exact ones
> my New Constitution will send packing. The main ‘changes’ that the
> USA needs are as simple as straightening out the ‘quality of the
> personnel’ that we hire to work for us in Washington, and in our local
> and state governments.
>
> Please know: “A New Constitution is the only ’change’ that we need!”
> Pass it on!
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> — NoEinstein — (AKA John A. Armistead)
>
>
>
> On Jan 28, 2:01 pm, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear Folks: The details concerning my "briefs" to Chief Justice John
> > G. Roberts, Jr. about the disqualifying aspects of having Barack Obama
> > become President, are included in numbers of essays that I wrote
> > leading up to the 2008 Election. In looking back at those, most
> > continue to be quite apt as we consider how best to save the USA.
> > Here is one those, I think, interesting essays:
>
> > 9/04/08
>
> > MCCAIN STRIKES GOLD IN ALASKA!
>
> > If Hockey Moms have as much going for them as Sarah Palin exhibited
> > last night at the Republican Convention, by all means, turn this
> > country over to them! Wearing lipstick doesn’t signify that there is
> > less POWER in “the weaker sex”, it just differentiates the Hockey Moms
> > from the Pit Bulls!
>
> > At last week’s Democratic Convention, Governor Bill Richardson asked
> > the throng, “Are you ready to take back this country?” That question
> > seemed to imply that Obama’s motive for ‘change’ is to wrest the
> > control of our country from the powers-that-be in Washington, and
> > return control to the People. On that one goal Obama and I agree—The
> > PEOPLE SHOULD BE IN CONTROL! That said, having Barack Obama be
> > elected President would be THE most catastrophic thing to happen to
> > this country, 9/11 included…
>
> > As was highlighted by Republicans last night, Barack Obama has
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
